Charter Choices

OPINION

Our Position: Orange County Voters Are Faced With Both Good And Bad Ideas.

October 15, 2004|By Fuchsia

When Orange County voters trek to the polls, they'll decide six proposed changes to the way county government operates.

Some are nonsensical, such as creating an "advisory village" in Pine Hills with no power to effect any change. But others -- such as exploring ways to save tax dollars with consolidated services and creating protections to prevent crowded schools -- are important.

Voters, then, should pay close attention to each of the proposed changes to the Orange County Charter. And we make these recommendations:

Question 1: This proposal would ensure that all residents have a voice in county government -- even if their elected official is incapacitated or unable to serve for more than 90 consecutive days. Northwest Orange County residents weren't so lucky. They lacked representation last year, when Commissioner Bob Sindler served in Afghanistan and refused to appoint a temporary replacement. It also includes other housekeeping measures, such as changing the county chairman's title to county mayor. Vote yes.

Question 2: This proposal would allow commissioners to designate "villages" and appoint "Village Advisory Boards" in unincorporated areas of the county -- which a small group of activists in the Pine Hills community believes would boost its stature. Voters don't need to clutter the charter with this. Commissioners could create the do-nothing villages by local law, if they so choose. Vote no.

Question 3: This proposal would create a joint commission of citizen representatives from Orange County and Orlando to study government services that could be consolidated. Who could object to studying the merging of government functions that might save taxpayers money? Vote yes.

Question 4: This proposal would allow Orange County to collect transportation impact fees in municipalities. But many municipalities already charge their own transportation fees. So it could promote urban sprawl by doubling development charges in urban areas. This proposal should be studied by the newly created consolidation commission. Vote no.

Question 5: This proposal would extend the time between reviews of the county charter, from four to eight years. Like the state and federal constitutions, the less the charter is tinkered with, the better. Vote yes.

Question 6: This would require both the county commission and local government officials to approve rezoning decisions -- if new development would overcrowd schools that serve children who live in both jurisdictions. That important check and balance should help protect students from poorly planned development. Vote yes.